Ron:
Not yet. There are two issues before us.
1. The term for the concept: I think it is safe to say that "service
consumer" is the term we should use for , well... service consumers.
2. Is the concept in the reference model: Whether or not that is part of
the reference model is another issue.
Duane
Schuldt, Ron L wrote:
>Is it safe to say that we are reaching consensus that we need an element named "Consumer" or something similar for the reference model?
>
>Whether a given service provider ever actually provides its service to a consumer is perhaps irrelevant since I have to believe that all SOAs have the intent of providing a service to a consumer.
>
>Ron
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:44 AM
>To: john@crossconnections.ws
>Cc: Chiusano Joseph; Thomas Erl; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [soa-rm] Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. Consumers
>
>
>Umm, yeah :-)
>
>The great thing about "consume" is that it doesn't get into specifics
>about the pattern of consumption. The reference model need not care
>about how a service is consumed, just that it can be.
>
>-Matt
>john c hardin wrote:
>
>
>
>>A consumer recipient of a 'push' is still a consumer, even though it
>>hasn't invoked or requested a service at the time of delivery.
>>Obviously at some point it has opted-in to the subscription, but not
>>necessarily at the time of delivery.
>>
>><the lurker speaks...>
>>
>>lots of traffic on this list right now... very good stuff
>>john hardin
>>
>>Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Same problem.
>>>
>>>You can consume a service without specifically invoking it.
>>>-Matt
>>>
>>>Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>How about "Service Invokers"?
>>>>
>>>>Kind Regards,
>>>>Joseph Chiusano
>>>>Booz Allen Hamilton
>>>>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] Sent: Thursday,
>>>>>March 31, 2005 9:19 PM
>>>>>To: Thomas Erl
>>>>>Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>>>Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. Consumers
>>>>>
>>>>>Consistency with other work aside, "request" strongly suggests how
>>>>>service consumption is initiated, and that is why I don't want to
>>>>>use it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>Matt
>>>>>Thomas Erl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's probably a good time to think about which term we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>should use to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>represent the potential element responsible for invoking or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>initiating
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>a conversation with a service acting as the service provider.
>>>>>>Regardless of whether this becomes an "official" element within
>>>>>>our reference model, we will likely need to reference such an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>element in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>our documentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Below are some considerations we can take into account:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- Both of the position papers submitted so far incorporate the
>>>>>>term "consumer". This term is also used in the ebSOA specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- The W3C Web Services Architecture document submitted by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Frank McCabe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>uses the term "requester" and further qualifies it by suffixing it
>>>>>>with "entity" or "agent" to represent the owner and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>software program
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>respectively. (Prior to the current version of the W3C
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Working Note,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>this document used the term "service requester" instead of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>"requester
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>agent".)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- The W3C Web Services Glossary does not provide a definition for
>>>>>>"consumer", but defines "requester agent" as follows: "A software
>>>>>>agent that wishes to interact with a provider agent in order to
>>>>>>request that a task be performed on behalf of its owner - the
>>>>>>requester entity."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- The term "requester agent" is used in the W3C WSDL 2.0
>>>>>>specification, whereas "consumer" is used in the WSDL 1.1 version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- The definitions document submitted by Rebekah uses the term
>>>>>>"requester", most likely because the initial set of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>definitions were
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>provided by Frank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Given that we are seeking industry-wide acceptance of our
>>>>>>reference model, there may be a benefit to keeping our terminology
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>alignment
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>with terms already in use by established (albeit
>>>>>>implementation-specific) specifications. I personally have no
>>>>>>preference, but I do recommend we decide on one term and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>then consider
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>adding a definition to our glossary. We may want to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>leverage some of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the work performed by the W3C Working Group and decide
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>whether we also
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>need separate terms to distinguish owner from implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On a related note, we have not yet discussed the concept of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>a service
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>or service agent assuming provider and requester/consumer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>roles. Such
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>a concept would also affect our definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
***********